The Saratoga Foundation

Legal name: Saratoga Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
933589313
IRS 990 coverage
2024–2024
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-N 2023
Location
Bethesda, MD, USA
Rating
66
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Research Institutes and Public Policy Analysis

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$299,618
Expenses
$53,105
Assets
$258,600
Liabilities
$12,087

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

6 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Glen E Howard (President and Chairman)

People named in this filing

  • Glen E Howard (President and Chairman)
  • James Carafano (Director)
  • Paul Goble (Director)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The Saratoga Foundation was founded for the purpose of deepening public awareness - not only about Ukraine - but the other moving parts of the Eurasian chessboard through the writings and insights of some of the leading strategic thinkers and experts in the world on this region. The mission of The Saratoga Foundation is to keep a watchful eye on all things Eurasia, whether it is a revanchist Russia or a rising China bent on dominating Inner Asia - or the widening trans-Caspian axis of Iran and Russia. By bringing together prominent indigenous experts and other experts to identify the emerging array of threats, The Saratoga Foundation seeks to help US decision-makers better understand the complex set of issues uniting the interests of Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea.

What it reported doing in 2024

Pontic Revolution: The Saratoga Foundation will assess how the war in Ukraine is transforming Black Sea security and NATOs eastern flank. The project will focus on new military technologies gray zone threats and naval innovations reshaping the region. It will also examine shifting trade routes and alliances that affect regional stability.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 99% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% of reported program-service expenses outside its grant, affiliate-payment, and member-benefit lines. This expense classification does not rule out separately announced grant awards.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 41
  • Transparency & Controls: 100
  • Accountability: 76
  • Sustainability: 81
  • Growth: NotEnoughData

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 17.3%; rating input score 17
  • Program expense ratio: 95.5%; rating input score 96
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 3 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 43
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Fail
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 82.3%; rating input score 98; 98th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 4.87; rating input score 79; 79th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.05; rating input score 33; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: Limited
  • Asset growth: Limited

Details

  • What they do: 1 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 5 operating locations identified
  • Where the money goes: 17.3% of revenue deployed · 95.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 6 of 6 board members independent · 3 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $51K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 6 people listed
  • Consistency: 31 of 31 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
  • Grant readiness: Federal tax and exclusion status, award history, and grant-maker relationships.
  • People: Everyone the filings name, and which of them the filings identify by more than a name.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 17/100.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 6 not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 33/100.